M/S. tsmail Man Power Consultancy v. Secunderabad

Petition under Article 226 of the constitut'ron of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide the Proc No- o1t122(',1)12017-BHEL, Dt 21-01-2017 as high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to the circular instructions, capricious, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and as such liatde to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the Bills ctaimed by the petitioner for an amount of Rs 3,85,452l- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Four Fifty Two only) with interest from 25-6-2014 forthwith I I NO oF 2017 MP. NO: 1 7333 oF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the respondents herein to pay the Bills claimed by the Petitioner for an amountofRs3,85,452l(RupeesThreeLakhsEightyFiveThousandFourFifty Twoonly)bysuspendingtheProcNoo11122(1)12017-BHEL,Dt21.01=2017 forthwith pending disposal of the W. P Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S. M. SUBHAN Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) The Gourt made the following: ORDER .1 ORDER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITTON No. 13963 0F 201 7 Heard Sri S,M.Subhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sra R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing on behalf of the respondents' 2 The petitioner a oroached the Court seekino Dra r as u nder: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3'd respondent In rejectinq the claim of the petitioner vide the Proc No.o1l122(1)/2017-BHEL, Dt.2l-OL-2O17 as high handed and arbltrary action, contrary to 'the circular instructions, capricious, u nco nstitutional, without jurisdiction and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the Bills claimed by the petitioner for an amount of Rs.3,85,452l- (Rupees Three Lakhs EiEhty Five Thousand Four Fifty Two only) wlth interesl from 25-6-2014 forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. The case of the petitioner in brief ls that, the petitioner was a contractor and petitioner used to do works in TSRTC and APSRTC. In the month of January, 2014, the petitioner had completed the work order like sweeping, cleanrng and washing of ordinary type ,) SN,J wp_13963 20t7 buses at BHEL Depot for a period of six months on nomination basis and the bills were paid. Similarly, in the month of lune, 2014, again for a period of six months, the same work was entrusted to the petitioner and the same was completed from 26.06.2014 to L2.ll,21l4 and the same was certified by the concerned Assistant Engineer (Mech), T.S.R.T.C. and the work order was also issued to the petitioner in the month of January, 2016. Immediately, the petitioner claimed bills for an amount of Rs.3,85,452l- by furnishing all the relevant documents whlch were duly signed by the Assistant Engineer Mechanical of BHEL Depot. However, the respondent No.3 issued rejection order vide proceedings No.01/122(\)/2OL7-BAEL, dated 21.01.2017 to the petitioner holding that the petitioner had submitted bills by manipulating the same and on bogus names. Aggrieved by the sa me, the writ petition is filed .

4.7 he relevant oorti o n of the roD ceed nos N o.o1 122 ( 1 ) /2O17-BHEL dated 21.O1.2O17 issued bv the resoondent lloiis extracted hereunder: "The clarification sought from the AE (Mech) of RNG-1 depot regarding the certification of wage bills and he has explained in his clarification that the contractor has supplied the workers, when I am worked in the BHEL depot at the time of his contract period basing on the work done / /tI / , SN,J wp_139$ jnl7 by the Contractor, but as per the records of the outsourcing registers the AE (Mech) clarification is not correct and the bills which are certiFied by him are bogus bills. Moreover, the contractor has manipulated and submitted wage bills on bogus names, wtose names were not tallying with the Security and maintenance registers, and the AE(Mech) of RNG-I depot the then AE(Mech) of BHEL depot has certified the bills blindly without verifying the concerned reg iste rs. In view of the bills, the circumstances and facts explained above, the wage bills are kept in pending, but there is no other intention, if you have submit the correct wage bills as per the depot related records your wage bills payments may be made after taking permission of Higher authorities."

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner instead I of submitting correct wage bills as per the depot related records, had submitted incorrect wage bills, which were not tallying with the Security and maintenance registers and therefore, the payment of pending wage bilts of the petitioner for the period from February, 2OL5 to May, 2O15, could not be cleared. 1 SN.J lvp I iq6l_2017 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-corporation further contends that upon the petitioner submitting a detailed representation with correct wage bills as per the depot related records, the request of the petitioner for release of payment of pending wage bills from February, 2OLS to March, 2O15, would be considered in accordance to Iaw by the respondent-corporation.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the responde nt-Corporatio n. 8 Takinq into nst deratio n: a) The facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-corporation and, c) The contents of the proceedings dated 21.O1.2OL7 in particular the relevant portion (referred to and extracted a bove), SN,J wp_13963 2017 The wrat petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation for release of payments pertaining to the petitioner's pending wage bills for the outsourcing activity of special type buses undertaken by the petitioner for the period from February, 2O15 to May, 2015 duly enclosing the correct wage bills as per the depot related records to the respondent No.3, within a per'od of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' Upon thepetitionersubmittingthesaidrepresentationw.thallthe relevant particulars as per the depot related records to respondent No.3 within the time period as stipulated as above, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the said representation in accordance to law within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter and duly communicate the decision on the said representation to the petitioner herein' However, there shall be no order as to costs. Asase quei, the miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed' SD'.A.SRINIVAS REDDY ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 0 SECTION OFFTCER To, 1 Il3 ffi3,YJ|l',? l{ff Y{,1 3 1T { t:f'ii:3f; J;: *!f[:?i'S' P icket' \- "-- Secunderabao

1. I \ I 3 4 5 6 7 fhe Depot Manager, T.S.R.T.C., BHEL Depot, Ramachandrapuram' Hvderabad. ?tE=n3liEi,si"ee(Mech), T.s.R.T'c', 0/0 Depot Manager' Ranigunj -'t Deoot. Secunderabad. 3 ffi Sg 3 Two CD CoPies "#I ft/_

3. xi,'HR8iu'"s85"*"1'3 4?" ?4,, a u/BSK "r I HIGH COURT \TDATED'o7lo1t2o2s ORDER WP.No.13963 of 2017 J I o11 lHE SI4 ( o 19 5iB 216 .<. :) .) \ z o i I AT CH€O DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (t zfrv;- 1r"f-^s-l I